"Homicide is justifiable when committed by the husband upon one taken in the act of adultery with the wife, provided that the killing takes place before the parties to the act have separated. "

Homicide is justifiable when committed by the husband upon one taken in the act of adultery with the wife, provided that the killing takes place before the parties to the act have separated. Such circumstance cannot justify a homicide where it appears that there has been, on the part of the husband, any connivance or assent to the adulterous connection.

Law of the State of Texas prior to 1973.

Frankly, whatever the law is anywhere now, if I were on a jury, I'd consider not convicting under these circumstances.  Of course, that's exactly why I'd never be on such a jury.  I probably would, but I wouldn't be keen on it.

Indeed, you have to take an oath that you'll uphold the law, and killing somebody is flat out wrong, but I'd not like that duty.

For that matter, I'd be a poor choice for a juror when an "ex" spouse killing a "new" spouse of his former spouse, as that is adultery, as divorce itself is a civil sham.  Same story there.  I guess I'd uphold my obligations as a juror, if I survived voir dire, which I probably wouldn't.

In some ways, the weeneyness of the current law is a shame.

Maybe the dilution of the current law is the real shame.  The old law, including the "heart balm" laws, were regarded as harsh.  They weren't harsh, they were realistic.  The decline in realism in this area since May 9, 1960, has not bee a good thing in every conceivable way.